Loading document...
Case Officer: Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.1 The application site is 22-23 North Quay, Douglas, which is a pair of part-three- and part-five-storey buildings that until recently was used as a shop at ground floor with a five-bedroom dwelling above, along with a three-storey warehouse storage element. To the Quayside, the building presents a three-storey frontage, with its basement being invisible although glass bricks do hint at the presence of a subterranean level. There is a garage to the rear, which fronts onto Queen Street behind.
1.2 The building as a whole is looking a little tired but certainly appears to be structurally sound.
1.3 Either side are buildings one storey higher than the application site.
1.4 The buildings in the area are in a mixture of uses, to include offices, residential, cafes and restaurants. An application to convert a nearby shop into an off licence and wine bar has yet to be determined.
1.5 The site is within the North Quay Conservation Area.
2.1 Full planning approval is sought to convert the building into office accommodation throughout to provide 311sqm of office space. A number of internal alterations - mainly the removal of partitions - are also proposed.
2.2 In terms of physical changes, a number of minor alterations are proposed. The existing garage would be converted to an electric vehicle storage and charging area, with space also shown set aside for 12 bicycle racks there; the existing garage door would be replaced with a sliding, sectional garage door. The existing windows would be replaced with uPVC sliding sash at first and second floor, while to the ground floor the existing large plate glass windows would be replaced with a centrally-positioned uPVC sliding sash window either side of smaller, non-opening window panels. Four solar panels are proposed to sit on the rear roof pitch amongst the existing rooflights, which would not be altered. Finally, a new slate roof is proposed.
| Application No.: | 14/01243/B |
| Applicant: | Noc396 Ltd |
| Proposal: | Conversion of existing shop, dwelling and warehouse to offices |
| Site Address: | 22 - 23 North Quay Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 4LE |
2.3 New doors would also be installed alongside those new ground floor window units, and these are shown in an aquamarine colour to reflect the company branding. A new, render signboard would stretch across the frontage of the two units and, although a specific sign is shown, this carries an annotation stating clearly that the signage will be the subject of a future application for advertisement consent.
2.4 Finally, and perhaps most significantly, also proposed is the creation of a roof balcony, which would be created through the removal of part of the roof - almost like an inverse dormer window. This cut-out would be accessible from the boardroom on the top floor and would, in elevational form, offer six glazing panels, four of which would be fixed and two of which would be sliding doors. Separating the glazing into a pattern of two to the left and four to the right (in the middle of which the sliding doors would sit) is horizontal timber panelling.
3.1 Planning approval was granted under PA 97/02231/A for the conversion of the warehouse to residential accommodation. No subsequent application was submitted.
3.2 The site has been the subject of other applications in the past, but none of these are considered to be especially relevant due to the time elapsed since their determination. Approval was also granted in 1997 for the alteration and refurbishment of 24 North Quay to provide office accommodation and a gallery.
3.3 The application referred to in paragraph 1.4 above is PA 14/01275/B.
4.1 The Douglas Local Plan 1998 zones the site and immediate surroundings as being mixed use.
4.2 Several policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 are relevant. General Policy 2 states (in part): "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
4.3 Environment Policy 35 states: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
4.4 Business Policy 7 states (in part): "New office floor space should be located within town and village centres on land which is zoned for the purpose on the appropriate area plan".
4.5 Strategic Policy 10 is important to consider: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:
4.6 This policy in many ways underpins Transport Policy 7, which states that: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards". In respect of tourist accommodation, those standards are 1 parking space per bedroom, with standards possibly relaxed in urban locations, "...where development:
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 In an email dated 24th November 2014, Highway Services advised that they had no objection to the application. 5.2 No response has been received from Douglas Borough Council at the time of writing.
6.1 There are two separate elements to the proposal. Firstly, the change in use; secondly, the physical works. It is the first point that is perhaps the most contentious.
6.2 In terms of the principle, it is accepted and acknowledged that the site is within an area zoned as mixed use but also actively in mixed use. With this in mind, the office use proposed would sit alongside the other uses here without detriment to those uses and without being prejudicial to the carrying on of the proposed office use. The area has a fairly cosmopolitan feel and a new business premises that did not provide food and drink offer will help that mixture continue to evolve.
6.3 It is considered, therefore, that the acceptability of the proposal turns on whether the new use would raise any other material considerations to balance against this.
6.4 The sole such issue is parking. In the first instance, it is noted that Highway Services have not objected. It is also noted that any use to which the building could be put would have a demand for parking, whether such a use required a planning application or not.
6.5 Proposed is an office building providing just over 300sqm of office space. In terms of Appendix 7, which relates to Transport Policy 7, this equates to a need to provide 6 car parking spaces (1 per 50sqm of office space). The one parking space on the site is proposed to be lost, albeit for parking-related purposes (this is covered in more detail later). The agent to the application argue that the need arising from the proposed development should be balanced against the need arising from the existing use, which would be four (1 each for the shop and warehouse, and 2 for the dwelling).
6.6 This argument is accepted to a point, although it is noted that the Strategic Plan did make an allowance for existing shortfall when it was formulated. Relaxations in standards can be applied in certain circumstances. The site is located in a fairly central location and is part of the town centre. Its location near to Lord Street means it has good access to public transport links, while several car parks are easily accessible.
6.7 It is also noted and strongly welcomed that the applicants intend to provide a green travel plan as part of their working environment to encourage non-private car modes of transport. This is the reasoning behind the alterations proposed to the garage to the rear, and although in some ways the retention of the garage might still be preferable, it is considered that intention of the applicant on this point, and the fact that bike storage and electric car-charging facilities would be available, is certainly accepted as a positive.
6.8 The green travel plan cannot be required to be implemented by anything other than a Section 13 legal agreement. As such agreements can only be entered into in order to make an application otherwise acceptable in Planning terms, one could be sought in this instance if the green travel plan were judged so necessary. The proposed use would probably result in an increase in parking demand over and above the previous use, but would probably not be considered so significant to warrant a refusal. As such, and given the site's location near to plentiful public transport facilities in what is the Island's main population centre, and given the fairly low shortfall that exists, it is considered that to require such a legal agreement would not be necessary. It is therefore judged that an objection on this ground could not be sustained.
6.9 Turning to the physical alterations, the vast majority are considered to result in an enhancement to the appearance of the Conservation Area. The use of traditional window styles (to replace casement windows) and the manner in which the building's overall emphasis is retained as vertical through the use of identical window and door styles and colours is strongly welcomed. The existing windows are not original to the buildings and as such they do little to add to the character of North Quay. The existing doors, meanwhile, may well be original features and, although interesting, are not in themselves necessarily worthy of protection. Moreover, the replacement doors proposed are equally and similarly characterful, and the fact of their being identical (whereas the current doors are not) is also welcome given the overall intention to tie the two buildings together. The use of slate for the roof is also a welcome and traditional approach that matches the roofing material found along the Quay.
6.10 The proposed cut-out balcony is also judged to be a success. Dormer windows need to be treated with great care, especially in a Conservation Area, and it is considered that the proposal here to invert the traditional method of providing extra floorspace in a roofspace is judged a success. It is particularly noted that the existing building sits lower than its two neighbours and the use of the more reticent cut-out here serves to emphasise that subservience in form in a subtle and successful way. In some ways, it is unfortunate that views of the roof are mainly from South Quay, which is some way distant and therefore the success of this element of the proposal will not be as widely discerned as might be hoped.
6.11 The other, smaller alterations such as the solar panels and new garage door are judged to have a broadly neutral effect on the appearance of the building given their scale and positioning to the rear, where the visual impression given by the building is rather less successful or important to protect.
7.1 The principle of the proposal is acceptable despite the application site failing to provide sufficient on-site parking; significant steps have been taken and significant effort made to address this issue and these are broadly welcomed in that they provide a good reason to accept a shortfall in parking provision in respect of this proposal and on this site.
7.2 The physical changes proposed to the building are, in general, viewed positively and likely to result in an enhancement to the appearance of the Conservation Area. It is equally considered that the return to active use of the building will be of positive benefit to the character of the Conservation Area.
7.3 In view of the above, any negative issues stemming from the shortfall in parking provision are judged to be sufficiently outweighed by the other positive benefits arising from the proposal and it is therefore recommended that planning approval be granted.
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant’s agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 02.12.2014
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
The development hereby approved relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 30th October 2014: 802/001, 802/002 and 802/003.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made: Permitted Date:
Signed: _________________________ Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer
Signed: _________________________ Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed: _________________________ Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown